Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?

I notice that the level of discourse has devolved precipitously.

You’re right and I apoligize. Just tired of seeing work and people misinterpreted. I’m out

1 Like

Please read Tour’s essays and watch his video and then get back to me.

Good news, that is what they already do!!

So much falsification! Did you just read Popper?

That is not really how science works. At least, it is not how we do things in the context I was trained and am a scientist.

I hope it does. I’m just point out the places that you lost me. Maybe instead of the super long posts, let’s focus on one thing at a time.

And I am well aware of this. You are getting catfished. We’ve covered this before: Miracles and Methodological Naturalism

Also, it is clear you are not reading the links I’m putting up. Can we try a reset here? Instead of trying to convince me, maybe we should try and understand each other first. I want to understand you too, and build some bridges. It is hard with all the (what appear to be) pre-canned polemics.

Really, can you give me some examples of the work that comes out of Discovery Institute that is good?

Prediction: A purely natural explanation for the origin of life will be found in the next 10 to 15 years, perhaps sooner.

QM is at the root of all natural processes. And QM leaves nothing as impossible, so nature is certainly capable of creating life through natural processes. Stars, Planets, Galaxies were created through natural processes, why wouldn’t primitive little self replicating biological organisms on a stable rocky planet with liquid water near a sun not be possible? It has done it here at at least once.

You are out on a limb @Patrick. That does not appear to be true.

That is a poorly specified prediction. We already have the trivially facile explanation “it happened by natural processes”. It is certainly not specified to enough detail to know of that explanation is plausible or not, true or not.

Progress is being made, but we are very far from an explanation that can settle the debate (outside science) about whether it is reasonable to say this was by natural processes alone. Knowing how big the gap is, and the level of rigor required in science, 15 years seems wildly optimistic.

The debate over evolution isn’t settled, neither is the big bang. Do you really think it will ever be so solid that no scientist will be able to add to the richness of the theory?

Regarding 15 years. well I will be 75 years old then, and hopefully I still have enough brain power left to understand the answer science has in fifteen years. So for me, the answer 15 years from now will be good enough for me.:grinning:

No, of course not.

But we do a disservice to equate the success of evolutionary science with the real limits of origin of life science. The two are not at the same level of maturity, rigor, or detail. It is a common tactic of anti-evolutionists to attack evolution by attacking origin of life, though the two are separate things. It is wise not to step into that trap.

Even atheists are allowed to dream of heaven. :smile:

For atheists, we have to create heaven for ourselves.

Regarding the origin of life question, I think that science will make progress understanding the natural processes that could have enabled life to originate but not be able to definitively say how life actually started on Earth because, I predict there will be a transitions period or process where I will be difficult to draw a line between non-life and life.

Look at the problem with who were the first humans. As we find more and more fossils and genomes it gets more and more ambiguous as who are humans and who are not. Similar to the dividing line between species.

The same with the big bang, we are a femtosecond away now from t=0 but can never really get there.

All that is certain is that the gaps in any god of the gaps theory is getting squeezed tighter and tighter.

1 Like

Agree with most things but this. You picked an arbitrary starting point. There were things before the big bang, perhaps the inflationary membrane. If we take that seriously, the beginning of the Big Bang, is a vast amount of “time” away from the beginning of things. Yes, I’m using “time” in a loose sense here.

Thanks for apologizing @T.j_Runyon. This is fairly common, so its a good idea to figure out how to get desensitized to it.

my t=0 is the start of inflation (or was it the end of inflation?) Given that time isn’t part of spacetime until there is a spacetime, I guess you are correct that t=0 is really arbitrary. So only time after big bang matters. So since I am an engineer, I will says that understanding the universe from one femtosecond after big bang to now is pretty good accomplishment for now especially when talking to YECs.

No, actually. It’s been a while since I read Popper. Rather, I was inspired by your attempt to falsify the RTB Model. I appreciate the fact you publicized that you could not falsify it. But attempting to falsify it was the right thing to do. Of course, attempting to falsify the RNA World, DNA first, etc is also the right thing to do.

Yes, I have read that link. I’m not sure why you think I haven’t. Let me pull a quote from you from that link and then compare it to Sean Carroll’s.

You write: “That is not actually correct. Rather, it is that science does not consider miracles. The hypothesis of miracles is not allowed from the get go. It is begging the question, circular reasoning, therefore to argue it teaches or finds that there are no miracles. That is a trivially absurd argument.”

Your claim is that science cannot consider miracles. Ever. My claim, and that of Sean Carroll, is that science has to consider miracles when the laws of physics give the scientist no other choice.

Let me quote Carroll again:
"“Some people try to sometimes say that science or naturalists start from an assumption of naturalism so they just simply won’t consider alternatives. I’m very happy to consider alternatives. I think if there was some phenomena in the world which really looked exactly like some religious tradition was saying should happen and was miraculous, was seemingly violating the laws of physics, what would scientists do in that situation? They would not say “We are not allowed to think about this because we agreed yesterday at faculty tea that the world is a natural world.” I think they would try to come up with the best explanation. If the best explanation is not naturalism, then I would buy that.” - Sean Carroll

Carroll goes on to say:

“In a proper, quantitative Bayesian probability analysis my prior for naturalism is higher than my prior for theism, but overwhelming evidence will always take care of that.”

There is a huge gulf between your viewpoint and that of Sean Carroll and me.

These are not pre-canned polemics. As far as I know, I’m one of the few people who are making these points. In the years ahead, I plan to publish them in a series of philosophy of science articles. I would appreciate it if you could bring yourself to interact with the ideas.

If you believe Sean Carroll is wrong, then why is he wrong?


Hi Patrick. The truth or falsity of this statement comes down to the question of whether we live in a quantum universe or a classical universe. I believe most physicists and philosophers of physics are coming to the view that we live in a classical universe that has some quantum effects. For example, we can generate electricity using only wave or wind power and there are no quantum effects involved at all. If our universe was strictly a quantum universe, this would not be true.

My earlier statement that the laws of physics rules out certain behaviors from nature holds true.

1 Like

No problem. Thanks for apologizing. Best wishes to you.